header-logo header-logo

Locked up without trial

07 September 2020
Issue: 7901 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Plans to increase custody time limits from 182 to 238 days have prompted alarm among legal professionals

Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland unveiled the proposed two-month extension this week, as part of a package of measures to address the backlog of cases. It will apply to persons accused of offences due to be heard in the Crown court, is expected to come into force on 28 September and will remain in place for nine months.

However, legal rights group Justice hit back with a stern rebuke, pointing out that time limits can already be extended on an individual basis due to illness, absence, the need for separate trials or some other good reason, and that a Coronavirus Crisis Protocol for the Effective Handling of Custody time Limit Cases has been in place since April, with judges and prosecutors deciding each case on an individual basis.

Justice said, in a statement, that it was ‘therefore extremely concerned that this measure will create a blanket extension of detention for all those remanded in custody, irrespective of their circumstances.

‘The right to liberty is protected by Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This requires the question of whether continued detention is justified or necessary to be decided on the circumstances of each individual case.’

Justice suggested, instead, that fully remote jury trials be used, where all participants join via video, jurors joining together in a socially distanced hub, and with the hearing livestreamed to a virtual public gallery. It said it had tested this option and found it fair.

Justice director Andrea Coomber said extending time limits sent a message ‘government is not prioritising the administration of justice during this crisis’. 

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council said: ‘We are very concerned that this 25% increase in the lawful detention of a potentially innocent person because there aren’t enough courts available to hear their trial does not become a license to push off cases for longer than absolutely necessary.’

Jury trials resumed in May but have been vastly reduced due to social distancing requirements. So far, ten temporary Nightingale courts have opened. 

Issue: 7901 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll